@phdthesis{Afanasyev2010, author = {Afanasyev, Vyacheslav}, title = {Evaluating Ukraine's agro-industrial sector: comprehensive assessment with the view of sustainability improvement and European integration}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:co1-opus-19027}, school = {BTU Cottbus - Senftenberg}, year = {2010}, abstract = {Being one of Ukraine's major sources of economic revenue, the country's agro-industrial sector proved, at the same time, to be perhaps the most vulnerable branch of economy in the times of political and social turbulence. While the state is searching for the ways of strengthening its positions at the global market, its agricultural potential to a considerable extent remains both under- and misused. Based on comprehensive historic analysis, this research establishes the origins of the current situation and assesses the possibilities of positive change. Utilizing the experience of other European countries' with regards to making agriculture more sustainable and competitive in the modern world, the author describes the ways of applying these practices against the background of Ukrainian socio-political system. Drawing knowledge from the experience of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) worldwide, this research aims at harmonizing their methods with evaluation demands in Ukrainian agriculture. It discusses and criticizes the existing assessment approach and suggests measures necessary for making it more comprehensive. The author offers profound analysis of Ukrainian agricultural policies to date, reviews national regulating directives and outlines country-specific challenges as to improving agricultural sustainability. In order to provide Ukrainian decision-makers with a clear and all-round tool for assessing the advances and failures of the acting state policies in the AIS, a set of reliable indices for evaluating agricultural performance has been developed by the author, which is largely based on the widely-acknowledged Driving Force - State - Response framework offered by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and Human Development Index (HDI) from United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) methodology. At the same time, the newly developed set takes into consideration the peculiarities of Ukrainian socio-political setting. Three major categories of indicators were chosen as a backbone for further elaboration, namely economic, social and political. Therefrom results a list of twelve relevant indices. At the concluding stage of the research, they were processed and transformed to three top-level indices: Economic Development Index, Environmental Situation Index and Social Development Index. These three indices are intended for clear and illustrative presentation of the current situation for high level decision-makers and governmental bodies. Methodology utilized for the purposes of this research with necessary adaptation and fine tuning can also be used with other set of initial data, indicators and indices. Application field can also be downscaled from the highest (national) to the lowest (regional) level by adapting the indicator-indices system to the initial input data. This will considerably simplify the compilation and presentation of regional reports and will provide transparency for interregional comparison within the country.}, subject = {Ukraine; Landwirtschaft; Umweltvert{\"a}glichkeitspr{\"u}fung; Nachhaltigkeit; Ukraine; Landwirtschaft; Bewertung; Nachhaltigkeit; Indikator; Ukraine; Agriculture; Evaluation; Sustainability; Indicator}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Onyango2010, author = {Onyango, Vincent}, title = {Confirming SEA definitional concept: assessing the extent to which SEA and environmental integration can be evaluated quantitatively and behaves systematically}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:co1-opus-18969}, school = {BTU Cottbus - Senftenberg}, year = {2010}, abstract = {Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a concept and a decision-making support tool. Based on its definitions, it is claimed that SEA can 1) contribute to the integration of environmental concerns into strategic decisions: policies, plans and programmes (PPPs); and that SEA 2) is a systematic process. Although these claims are widely acknowledged in SEA research and practice, they remain largely unsubstantiated empirically. To date, SEA research is dominated by qualitative-type approaches, investigating aspects of effectiveness, of context and of elements of good practice. Quantitative-type research has been rare, and often criticised on the basis that it is unable to capture and address the dynamic nature of PPP-making processes, i.e. the involvement of a wide range of actors, the input of new information and the existence of different views and interests, which give rise to uncertainty and unpredictability. Nevertheless, the potential of quantitative research in SEA has yet to be fully explored, and the extent to which SEA is meeting the two definitional claims mentioned above remains untested and undetermined. Within this context, this study aims to apply a quantitative research approach to SEA and verify the extent to which SEA contributes to environmental integration (EI) and the extent to which SEA behaves systematically. It achieves this by looking at UK practice as a case study. It applies questionnaire survey, correlation analysis and sensitivity analysis as methods of quantitative research approach. The findings of this research confirmed that quantitative methodologies can be successfully applied to evaluate the presence and quality of SEA procedures and their outputs. Furthermore, the degree of EI reflected in plans and programmes (PPs) because of the SEA, as reflected in the PP's environmental objectives and indicators, can be quantitatively evaluated. However, to enhance this quantitative evaluation process, clearer and more precise environmental objectives are needed. Of the two definitional SEA claims evaluated, that (1) SEA contributes to EI in PPPs and that (2) SEA is a systematic process), there was weak evidence to support the claim that SEA significantly achieved EI within UK SEA practice. Of the second claim, it was concluded that the UK SEA process behaves as a systematic process composed of negative and positive feedbacks. Moreover, the UK SEA process is a stable system prone to over-development and with inadequate negative feedbacks to facilitate self-regulation of the SEA process towards a certain range of EI. Based on the findings, it is recommended that if SEA effectiveness and theory-building are to be enhanced, application of more quantitative methods and hypothetico-deductive paradigms of scientific enquiry should be applied in order to test and verify stated hypotheses. Application of other quantitative methods such as Factor Analysis and/or Principal Component Analysis should be considered in order to further establish the explanatory elements for EI achievement, and contributory roles of various SEA elements in achieving EI. Furthermore, quantitative approaches can facilitate calibrating of SEA reports and EI achieved, and enhance standardisation and quality control. It is further recommended that if SEA is to be understood as a systematic process with dynamic interactions amongst its elements, then further research needs to be conducted to improve follow-up mechanisms and establish quality hold points in order to enhance quality assurance. Specifically, more negative feedback loops or best practice standards and quality control hold points should be integrated into the SEA system in order for it to better self-regulate towards achieving a defined range of EI.}, subject = {Umweltanalyse; Strategische Planung; Umweltpolitik; Nachhaltige Entwicklung; Strategische Umweltpr{\"u}fung (SUP); Quantitative Bewertung; Methodentriangulation; Sensitivit{\"a}tsanalyse; SUP-System; Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA); Quantitative evaluation; Triangulation method; Sensitivity analysis; SEA system}, language = {en} }